This website is a collection of my writings which primarily deals with issues of political and socio-economic issues in the Caribbean.
It also contains links to important resources on the region and it's people.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Set against the backdrop of a deeply polarized election campaign over
the future of the post-Hugo Chavez era, it became clear late Sunday
night that Nicholas Maduro would become the next President of
Venezuela—albeit with a very narrow margin. When the final vote count
came in, it was announced that Maduro had won with 50.7% of the vote,
with his opponent Henrique Capriles taking 49%. In the absence of any
unforeseen situations, Maduro is scheduled to be officially sworn in on
Friday.

Given the 1.7% margin of victory, Capriles is alleging widespread
irregularities and is demanding a manual recount of all votes. Until
this happens, Capriles has publicly stated that he will regard Maduro
as “an illegitimate president.” Secretary of State John Kerry was quick
to jump on the opposition bandwagon, telling a hearing of the U.S.
House Foreign Affairs Committee that
"We think there ought to be a recount. . . . Obviously if there are
huge irregularities we're going to have serious questions about the
viability of that government."

According to the National Electoral Council, due to the nature of
Venezuela’s voting system, it is impossible to conduct a manual recount
of all votes. In response to the opposition’s demands for a 100%
recount, Venezuelan Chief Justice Luisa Estella Morales said that the
nation’s 1999 constitution eliminated manual recounts, reaffirming that
"In Venezuela the electoral system is completely automated. Therefore, a
manual count does not exist. Anyone who thought that could really
happen has been deceived. . . . The majority of those who are asking for
a manual count know it and are clear about it. Elections are not
audited ballot by ballot but through the system." Instead, the National Electoral Council said it had conducted an audit of 54% of the ballots and their respective voting slips.

During the elections on Sunday, international observers did not
report any incidents or suspicious activities which were of concern.
Such groups included a delegation from the U.S. Lawyers Guild, members of the Scottish Parliament, and former presidents
Leonel Fernandez of the Dominican Republic and Alvaro Colom of
Guatemala. In September 2012, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter remarked that
"As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would
say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world."

In a televised speech Maduro responded by stating that
"The U.S. intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs in recent months,
and particularly during the election campaign, has been brutal, vulgar.
. . . Its direct coordination with the 'yellow bourgeois,' with the
oligarchs, has been truly obscene.” Such responses have bolstered the
opposition supporters, leading to a further polarization of the country.
Since Sunday, the ongoing political clashes have resulted in eight reported deaths and hundreds of injuries and arrests. It has also been reported that
Cuban medical doctors have been the targets of opposition violence—with
several Cuban staffed clinics set on fire by opposition supporters.
Attacks have also been reported on the Telesur and VTV media buildings, in addition to the houses of various government officials.

While Maduro did not give specifics of U.S. intervention in his
speech, based on the historical record such claims should not be
dismissed as simply wild speculation. It has become commonly understood
that USAID, the International Republican Institute, and the National
Endowment for Democracy have all funded and strategized with the
Venezuelan opposition.

Furthermore, the New York Times
has acknowledged that in 2002 that the C.I.A. backed a coup d’etat
against Chavez, which was foiled due to immediate popular pressure for
his reinstatement. Despite their failure in 2002, the U.S. government
remained undeterred in their quest to undermine Chavez. Such was
revealed in a 2006 Wikileaks cable
that outlined U.S. government’s five-point strategy to weaken the
Chavez government. The five points are outlined as being: strengthening
democratic institutions, penetrating Chavez's political base, dividing
Chavismo, protecting vital U.S. business interests, and isolating Chavez
internationally.

In reference to the U.S. position articulated by John Kerry, Bolivian President Evo Morales remarked that
“I would like to express that this is a flagrant U.S. interference in
Venezuela’s democracy, as neither that spokesperson nor the U.S.
government has moral authority to question electoral results in any
Latin American country or around the world.” Similarly, Argentinean
President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has also criticized the stance
of the State Department regarding their failure to recognize the victory
of Maduro, stating that
“I dare ask, with much humility, [that] the government of the United
States . . . recognize the Venezuelan government after transparent and
fair elections.”

However, close or controversial election contests are nothing new to
the hemisphere. In the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, an extremely
tight race led to a recount of votes in Florida. It was later revealed
that African American voting precincts had three times the number of
discarded or spoiled ballots in a result where George Bush won by 537
votes. In 2012, the U.S. was quick to congratulate Enrique Peña Nieto’s
victory over the left leaning Andrés Manuel López Obrador—despite widespread allegations of voter fraud and bribery. The United States has also given the thumbs up to the 2010 elections in Haiti where Michel Martelly was elected in a race in which 14 political parties were banned, or in Honduras in 2009
when the United States recognized an election which institutionalized
the coup d’etat of democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. The
list is much longer; however, political double standard should be
obvious to anyone.

Despite this record of selective support for democracy, the U.S.
mainstream media attacks upon Maduro have been relentless—portraying his
victory as part of a sinister plot. An April 16 piece by the Washington
Post editorial board highlighted their collective ignorance of the
situation and the nostalgia for a return to the Monroe Doctrine by remarking that
“The (Obama) administration should begin coordinating with Mexico,
Chile, and other important Latin American democracies to prevent Mr.
Maduro from killing his way into power.”

While it is understandable that the United States is not pleased with
the outcome of the election in Venezuela given their economic
interests, it does not give them the right to undermine the political
process of a sovereign country. Such irresponsible editorials and
political posturing by the U.S. media and government no doubt add fuel
to the opposition’s fire and puts hopes for a peaceful settlement
further out of reach.

While the situation in Venezuela still remains tense and unclear, one
can only hope that a peaceful political settlement can be reached. It
should be the duty of the international community to help Venezuela
achieve this goal—not undermine it. If the goal is for the democracy to
run its course in Venezuela, it is incredibly important that
anti-democratic means do not become the tools of choice in order to
bring about a change in government more favorable
to U.S. interests. Anything else risks sending the country onto a path
of prolonged political conflict and economic regression which will only
harm the Venezuelan people and severely damage the already strained
relations between the United States and Latin America.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

In the most trying of times, it is often said that it becomes much easier to tell real friends from the fake. Since the announcement
by United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki Moon, claiming that the U.N.
has legal immunity when it comes to their role in introducing cholera
to the country, the Haitian people are currently learning that, outside
of Cuba, even supportive words are hard to come by within the rest of
the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

By now it has become widely accepted that the U.N. was responsible
for introducing cholera into Haiti during October 2010 via negligent
screening protocols and waste management at their base in Mirebalais.
Prior to the arrival of the U.N. troops in Mirebalais, Haiti had not
suffered an outbreak of cholera in their recorded history. Numerous
independent medical studies have
established that Nepalese troops were the source of the outbreak—with
this much being admitted by U.N. Special Envoy for Haiti Bill Clinton of all people. Despite the evidence and high-level admissions of guilt, the U.N. is covering itself by invoking Section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the U.N.

While CARICOM is far from being the most influential player in global
politics, in a situation such as this their words can still have a
great deal of power and importance. A statement of solidarity in
condemnation of the lack of accountability and respect shown by the U.N.
in Haiti would at least make it clear that they do not accept one of
their members being treated in such a manner. As it currently stands, it
is impossible to tell one way or the other what the 15 member nations
of CARICOM think. Without exaggerating, in this case, their silence is
indeed deadly.

In an interview with the Guardian, Nicole Phillips of the Institute
for Justice and Democracy in Haiti put things into a sobering
perspective, reminding readers that
almost three times as many people had died in the continuing cholera
crisis as in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Yet there has been no
announcement or official statement on behalf of CARICOM calling on the
U.N. to take responsibility and rectify the situation, which has claimed
the lives of more than 8,300 people so far.

The most vocal critic within the region has been former Jamaican Prime Minster P.J. Patterson, who remarked that
“It is simply appalling, a most reprehensible behavior . . . for the UN
to claim such immunity. . . . The more so when scientific evidence
substantiates that the cholera epidemic was originally introduced in
Haiti at the time by peace-keeping soldiers (from Nepal) under U.N.
command.”

Whether it comes from the mouth of Haiti’s Michel Martelly, who is
currently acting as the head of CARICOM, Jamaican Prime Minister Portia
Simpson Miller, or the leaders involved in the anti-imperialist ALBA
bloc such as Roosevelt Skerrit, Ralph Gonsalves or Baldwin Spencer—the
leadership of the Caribbean must speak up for Haiti.

This is not to say that CARICOM has not taken important stands to
speak out against injustice in the past. Indeed, CARICOM has come out
before and strongly condemned the 2009 coup in Honduras, denounced the
2004 overthrow of Aristide, and continually denounces the U.S. blockade
against Cuba. The question is, why the silence on the U.N.’s role in
bringing cholera to Haiti?

It is not as if the U.N. does not have money to fund the proposed initiative
to combat cholera. Instead, they are choosing to spend it in incredibly
problematic ways. The most prominent example being that the current
military operation of the U.N. in Haiti, known as MINUSTAH, has an
annual budget of nearly $700,000,000.
If this money from the U.N. were redirected towards a war on
eradicating cholera, it would start to save lives instead of taking
them. As such, CARICOM shouldn’t want to be remembered for staying
silent during such an important moment.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Sunday's revelation that the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) will be
bringing in "temporary guest workers" to replace some of its Canadian
employees captured headlines, sparking outrage and surprise, and leading
many to threaten a bank boycott and move their accounts elsewhere.

The outrage is certainly understandable -- as one would think that RBC, with its more than $2 billion in first quarter profits, could afford to retain these workers -- but the surprise isn't.

Without being condescending, I have five words for those who greeted
this news with disbelief and shock: this is how capitalism works. Or,
as RBC CEO Gord Nixon recently wrote in a more sanitized and politically
correct manner, it simply falls in line with the bank’s dedicated
commitment to "operational effectiveness."

Before proceeding any further, it is important to inject into this
conversation -- which can quickly descend into xenophobia and
anti-immigrant sentiment, is that it is not the "temporary guest
workers" which are the problem -- it is solely government and corporate
policy which is at fault.

It was been recently confirmed that it was the federal government
which gave the nod to RBC's plans to shift towards the hiring of guest
workers by granting it a "positive labour market opinion."

The statements given by RBC CEO Gord Nixon and Human Resources and
Skills Development Canada Minister Diane Finley have both put forward a
particular policy loophole which might allow RBC to be let off the hook.
On paper, it was not RBC which arranged this change to temporary guest
workers; instead, that was done by a U.S. based staffing agency, known
as iGate, which, according to its website, specializes in "strategic outsourcing solutions" that help companies reduce costs.

Whether it is called "operational effectiveness" or "strategic
outsourcing," what is happening at RBC is not a new phenomenon, it is
that the attack on Canadian workers has grown confident enough to begin
attacking the jobs of information technology professionals.

With the signing of NAFTA it was blue collar, predominately unionized
workers who were met with threats to accept less pay despite being more
productive and profitable. Despite the impact that free trade has had
on manufacturing it has been spun by the government and the media as the
acceptable cost of doing business in the new global economy. There is
more to it than that. While the high dollar has been often cited for
accelerating the decline in manufacturing, this was not the case when a
significant amount of jobs left during the years of the record low
Canadian dollar from the mid-1990s well into the 2000s. It has been the
ongoing policy of successive Canadian government to produce a flexible
(aka non-unionized and cheap) labour force.

Despite having both qualified workers and profitable production in
Canada, there has been an alarming erosion of manufacturing jobs -- with
federal government statistics revealing that between 2000-2007 there
was a loss of 278,000 manufacturing jobs. From October 2008 to October 2009 alone, there was a loss of 218,000 full time manufacturing positions.

The lack of organized public support from the non-unionized sectors
for those manufacturing workers who continue to face everyday threats of
outsourcing from profitable companies reveals a class bias which has
been deeply ingrained into Canadian society and politics that must
confronted. The problematic 'right to work' platform
of Tim Hudak reveals that the conservatives have calculated (one hopes
incorrectly) that a significant portion of Ontarians are in support of
anti-union initiatives and putting wages which support a middle class
standard of living out of reach.

In many ways, the growth of the "temporary guest worker" program is
giving a new face to the exploitation of marginalized groups for the
sake of maximizing already staggering corporate profits. In January it
was revealed that Canadian corporations are sitting on $500 billion
of corporate cash holdings -- but still continue to portray themselves
as being victims of discriminatory labour and environmental policies.
The recently passed Bill C-38
gutted Canada's environmental regulations, removing or reducing much
needed protections for water, air and wildlife in order to boost
corporate profits.

The latest jobs report from Statistics Canada highlighted the
undeniable success of these regressive polices, revealing that
employment within the low wage food service was the fastest growing sector
in the Canadian economy. To add to the shedding of high paying
manufacturing jobs for low paying service jobs, in April 2012
Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Human Resources Minister Diane
Finlay announced the implementation of a two-tier wage system which
would extend into the fast food service industries -- with "temporary
guest workers" being paid 15 per cent less
than Canadian citizens. These government policies have helped to put
downward pressure on the wages of Canadian workers across the board.

In a sign of the times, even corporate Canadian donut icon Tim
Horton's found itself in hot water, after being hit with a human rights
complaints due to the mistreatment and exploitation
their temporary guest workers. In the past it was the case that one's
race or gender would bring lower wages for doing equal work (and in many
cases it still does); now foreign workers are underpaid for doing the
exact same work that was once done by Canadians. For years Canada has
underpaid farm labourers from Latin America and the Caribbean, who pay
into benefit systems they are not entitled to, face dangerous working conditions and often live in substandard housing.

Hopefully the RBC outsourcing has just revealed to the public that
the labour flexibility policies pursued by the Canadian government seek
to spare no sector -- whether in manufacturing, mining or information
technology.

The Harper government is not interested in creating good jobs and
strengthening the Canadian middle and working class; it is solely
interested in maintaining record high corporate profits by further
deregulating labour and environmental policies.

If there is any chance of reversing this trend of attacking workers
by undercutting them at home and abroad, the outrage directed at RBC
should not be an isolated incident, but instead be replicated at every
single CEO and government enabler which seeks to bring about
"operational effectiveness" by shedding much needed jobs to further
bloat a very profitable bottom line.

If this is not the case, we can only expect more of the same to be on
the way once the federal government finalizes and implements the
Canada-China and Canada-EU free trade agreements.